Continuous assessment fit for purpose? Analysing the experiences of academics from a South African university of technology

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview of assessment

Table 1. Participant gender distribution by age group and race categories.

Age Groups	% Male	% Female	Race	%Percent
20–29	14.3	34.8	African	32.3
30–39	7.1	0	Coloured	1.5
40–49	42.9	43.5	Indian	49.3
50–59	28.6	13.0	White	16.9
60–69	7.1	8.7

Table 2. Percentage of undergraduate programme modules using continuous assessment and/or examination in the FoHS.

Undergraduate Programmes	Combination of		CA Only
	CA	Examination
Biomedical Technology	10.5%	89.5%
Child and Youth Development	22.2%	87.8%
Chiropractic	5%	95%
Clinical Technology	25%	75%
Dental Technology	81%	19%
Emergency Medical Care and Rescue			100%
Environmental Health	31%	69%
Homoeopathy	11.7%	88.3%
Medical Orthotics and Prosthetics			100%
Radiography			100%
Somatology	20%	80%
Nursing	30.7%	69.3%

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

Background Characteristics		Frequency	Percent
Undergraduate Programmes	Basic Medical Sciences	7	10.9
	Biomedical Technology	2	3.1
	Child and Youth Development	6	9.4
	Chiropractic	6	9.4
	Clinical Technology	3	4.7
	Dental Technology	4	6.3
	Emergency Medical Care and Rescue	3	4.7
	Environmental Health	6	9.4
	Homoeopathy	4	6.3
	Radiography	9	14.1
	Somatology	6	9.4
	Nursing	8	12.5
Educational Qualifications	Post-graduate diploma/ Honours/Bachelor of Technology	12	18.8
	Master’s degree	43	67.2
	Doctorate	9	14.1
Type of Employment	Permanent		81
	Full time contract		11.1
	Part time		7.9

Table 4. Reliabilities.

Question	Section	Number of Items	Cronbach’s Alpha α
Q10	I do not use CA	6 of 7	0.658
Q11	How did you obtain knowledge about CA and its practices?	11 of 13	0.541
Q12	I obtained knowledge about CA and its practices by …	9 of 9	0.748
Q13	Understanding of CA and its practices	6 of 7	0.431
Q14	Assessments attempt to encourage students to be	5 of 5	0.909
Q18	Understanding of moderation of CA	2 of 3	0.421

Figure 2. Reasons for not using CA

Figure 3. Ways of acquiring knowledge about CA and its practices

Table 5. Factor analysis results.

Section of the Questionnaire		Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy	Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
			Approx. Chi-Square	df	Sig.
Q12	CA as a method of assessment.	0.539	65.083	28	0.000
Q13	Understanding of CA and its practices.	0.597	9.393	10	0.495
Q14	Assessments attempt to encourage students to be.	0.854	121.459	10	0.000
Q18	Understanding of moderation of CA.	0.501	6.755	3	0.080

Figure 4. Reasons for using CA

Figure 5. Conceptual understanding of CA and its practices

Figure 6. Assessments encouraging graduate attributes